1 Thessalonians 2.13-16, Paul, and the gospel of Matthew.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

1 Thessalonians 2.13-16, Paul, and the gospel of Matthew.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Floating a possibly silly idea....

A recent exchange between Andrew Criddle and Peter Kirby got me thinking about 1 Thessalonians 2.13-16; specifically, it prompted me to revisit the influential 1971 article by Birger A. Pearson, which is available online. (This forum will not let me post links yet, so just use Google: birger pearson 1 thessalonians, and look for the PDF.) Pearson concludes by rightly turning to the gospel of Matthew to find the closest parallels to the alleged interpolation, since many of its words and concepts do strike some characteristically Matthean notes.

Fair enough, but I am reminded that 2.13-16 is not the only passage in 1 Thessalonians to bear a decidedly Matthean stamp. 1 Thessalonians 4.13-5.11 offers a raft of parallels to the so-called Olivet discourse (Matthew 24.1-25.46 = Mark 13.1-37 = Luke 21.5-38), and by far the closest parallels are to Matthew, not to Mark or Luke.

How much of a coincidence is it that a passage so widely regarded as an interpolation should heavily parallel Matthew in an epistle that already heavily parallels Matthew in this other passage? Did the interpolator simply notice the Matthean connections in chapters 4 and 5 and decide to draw from the same well, as it were, for the bulk of the interpolation? Or does 2.13-16 being an interpolation cast doubt on 4.13-5.11, as well? (Notice how the theme of work in 4.9-12 leads pretty naturally into the theme of acknowledging the work of those who labor among you in 5.12-13. I think William O. Walker suspected at least part of 4.13-5.11 as an interpolation in his book on interpolations in the Pauline letters.) Or is there something to the seeming coincidence that, on the one hand, Paul bears connections (both in the epistles and in the Acts) to Antioch in Syria while, on the other, many scholars think that the gospel of Matthew was penned in Syria? Did Paul himself drink from that same Matthean well (presumably at an earlier stage than the gospel of Matthew itself)?

If we consider both 1 Thessalonians 2.13-16 and 1 Thessalonians 4.13-5.11 to be interpolated for a moment, just for the sake of argument, it might be noticed that the former passage (with its wrath to the utmost falling upon the Judeans/Jews), when considered in conjunction with (say) 5.9 (with its connection of divine wrath with the day of the Lord), makes it look rather like the day of the Lord should have happened in 70, at the destruction of Jerusalem. Is it perhaps this interpolated version of 1 Thessalonians that either Paul or his later forger has in mind in 2 Thessalonians 2.2, which cautions against forged epistles or other Pauline communications which claim that the day of the Lord is here and now? The meaning of 2 Thessalonians 2.1-12 then becomes: you have read or heard about a Pauline epistle which claims that the day of the Lord coincides with the wrath upon the Judeans/Jews in 70; but that epistle was a forgery (or, rather, a forged version of a genuine Pauline epistle); the truth is that it just cannot be the day of the Lord until the man of lawlessness takes his seat in the temple of God and claims to be God... and none of that happened in 70, so relax... at least for now.

What do you think? I have no special attachment to this hypothesis, as it is only a couple of days old. Has anything like this been proposed before? Is there any possible merit to it? Poke away.

Ben.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 1 Thessalonians 2.13-16, Paul, and the gospel of Matthew

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Thanks, Peter. I have already consulted several of those, but the rest I have not. I will do so and see what I come up with.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 1 Thessalonians 2.13-16, Paul, and the gospel of Matthew

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Okay, a quick round-up, bearing in mind that my idea both (A) tags both 1 Thessalonians 2.14-16 and 4.13-5.11 (as a whole) as interpolations and (B) has 2 Thessalonians 2.2 referring back to this interpolated epistle.

I was unable to access more than a brief preview of Schippers, Plevnick, Donfried, or Schmidt.

Several of the listed articles treat only 1 Thessalonians 2.14-16, assuming that the passage is genuinely Pauline but then seeking to exulpate Paul from charges of anti-Semitism on its account. Dickieson does this, as does Downey. Lamp analyzes the supposed anti-Semitism in light of Testament of Levi 6. These efforts obviously do not touch my proposal.

Other articles, such as those by Buchhold and Bockmuehl, argue that 1 Thessalonians 2.14-16 is genuinely Pauline. If true, then of course my proposal falls to the ground. But on this thread I want to assume for the sake of argument that this passage is an interpolation so as to test what might happen to 4.13-5.11 on that score and to see how it all might relate to 2 Thessalonians.

Still others identify 1 Thessalonians 2.14-16 as an interpolation, as my idea assumes, but then do not connect it in any substantial way to 4.13-5.11. Walker definitely thinks that 2.14-16 is an interpolation, and also lists 1 Thessalonians 5.1-11 among passages that have been questioned in some quarters, but he punts to Friedrich for the details, and unfortunately I cannot read German. Furthermore, my idea entails 5.1-11 being part of 4.13-5.11 as a whole, as argued by Howard (whom I have read before), though of course Howard sees the entire passage as Pauline. Schnelle, likewise, following Friedrich, treats 5.1-11 by itself, unlike my treatment of 4.13-5.11 as a unit.

Two loose ends left.... Wanamaker appears to assume that 1 Thessalonians 4.13-5.11 are genuinely Pauline, and seeks to understand Pauline apocalypticism, while Bauer wishes to call both Thessalonian epistles into question in their entirety.

It seems difficult to locate arguments that place these 1 Thessalonian passages in context with 2 Thessalonians 2.2. My proposal does not appear to have made the rounds, as it were, if indeed it ever has been proposed before.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: 1 Thessalonians 2.13-16, Paul, and the gospel of Matthew

Post by Peter Kirby »

If anyone still needs access, here is Pearson and Schmidt (specifically on 1 Thess 2:13-16).

Also, your ideas are interesting and cogent as usual, Ben. Maybe I'll have something meaningful to say after more thought.
Attachments
schmidt.pdf
(953.43 KiB) Downloaded 525 times
pearson.pdf
(1.7 MiB) Downloaded 520 times
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Blood
Posts: 899
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

Re: 1 Thessalonians 2.13-16, Paul, and the gospel of Matthew

Post by Blood »

It's not an interpolation. Those who want it to be one either have a vested interest in trying to soften the Hitleresque tone of the passage, or they don't want it to be there since it destroys their Jesus-crucified-in-outer-space hypothesis.
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: 1 Thessalonians 2.13-16, Paul, and the gospel of Matthew

Post by Peter Kirby »

Blood wrote:It's not an interpolation. Those who want it to be one either have a vested interest in trying to soften the Hitleresque tone of the passage, or they don't want it to be there since it destroys their Jesus-crucified-in-outer-space hypothesis.
Yes, well, we can all go home then. Thanks.

(And, sorry, my sarcasm detector is in the shop. You'll have to let me know if your comment were in jest. Thanks.)
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: 1 Thessalonians 2.13-16, Paul, and the gospel of Matthew

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Ben,
1 Thessalonians 4.13-5.11 offers a raft of parallels to the so-called Olivet discourse (Matthew 24.1-25.46 = Mark 13.1-37 = Luke 21.5-38), and by far the closest parallels are to Matthew, not to Mark or Luke.
Why is 1 Thessalonians 4.13-5.11 closer to Matthew 24.1-25.46 rather than to Mark 13.1-37?

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 1 Thessalonians 2.13-16, Paul, and the gospel of Matthew

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Peter Kirby wrote:If anyone still needs access, here is Pearson and Schmidt (specifically on 1 Thess 2:13-16).

Also, your ideas are interesting and cogent as usual, Ben. Maybe I'll have something meaningful to say after more thought.
Thank you very much, Peter.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 1 Thessalonians 2.13-16, Paul, and the gospel of Matthew

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Blood wrote:It's not an interpolation. Those who want it to be one either have a vested interest in trying to soften the Hitleresque tone of the passage, or they don't want it to be there since it destroys their Jesus-crucified-in-outer-space hypothesis.
I do not seem to fall into either category; do you have a third? I admit, however, that I have gone back and forth on whether or not this passage is an interpolation.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply